Syed Kamall MEP

Despite the best efforts of the Coalition, Britain is
still a “broken society”. We have a hard core of about a million adults who
simply do not know the meaning of work. We still have hundreds of thousands of
people trapped on welfare dependency, some looking for a job but others
comfortable and unambitious on their benefits, plus sixteen hours a week of part
time earnings. Up and down the country, we still have gangs of youths hanging
around on the streets with nothing to do, many from broken families whose
parents were too preoccupied with their own survival to be in a position to
spend energy on disciplining their children.

The welfare state of today is a far cry from what its
inventor Beveridge envisaged: a system which would support people in need at times
when they most needed it and help return them to self sufficiency. Today, the
welfare state has become the master rather than the servant of the poor. Iain
Duncan Smith’s reforms, which are the first serious attempt to get rid of
poverty traps, cannot come soon enough. But the overhaul of the benefit system
will not be a panacea.

Syed Kamall is a Conservative MEP for London and sits on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. Follow Syed on Twitter.

This week, Brussels has been asking for the power to rewrite national budgets if they do not comply with deficit and debt rules. With this power, Eurocrats would have the ability to scrap budgets written by democratically elected governments throughout the eurozone. It would be like the American Revolution in reverse: “no taxation without representation” replaced by “more taxation, less representation”. We have already seen in recent years the replacement of democratically elected governments with temporary technocratic appointments, nodded through by compliant parliaments. However, fiscal union poses a more permanent threat to Europe’s democracies.

For several months the eurozone has been stalled at a fork in the road. It either turns left and goes for full fiscal and political union, with sovereignty and national debts pooled, or it turns right and allows the eurozone to shrink by letting the weaker member states leave in an orderly fashion. Letting Greece leave the eurozone is still too big a psychological blow for the political elites who see the euro as an essential building block towards a federal republic of Europe. They also worry that it would set a precedent for other countries to leave, potentially leading to an unravelling of the eurozone.

That's why eurozone leaders are continuing to to forge an 'ever closer union'. Yet resolving the crisis seems as far away as ever because there is little appetite amongst the richer member states to accept what needs to be done. A sustainable monetary union requires fiscal transfers from the richer to the poorer or less productive areas. We need only look to the USA, where the richer states fund, via the federal government, the poorer states. This works because Americans regard themselves as American and they see their country as essentially democratically structured. Sterling as a currency union appears to work as London and the South East subsidise less productive areas of the UK, even though there is growing English resentment at being seen to subsidise parts of Scotland. But in Europe, despite the proclamations of many of my fellow MEPs, there is not a strong European identity. Having transformed their economy by going through painful economic reform, my German friends tell me they resent subsidising what they see as the less productive Greeks.

Syed Kamall is Conservative MEP for London and sits on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. Follow Syed on Twitter.

While it is better to be part of a coalition government than not in government at all, we could achieve so much more if Conservatives occupied all the offices of state. For that to happen, we have to win a majority at the next General Election.

The Conservative Party is right to try to reach out to disaffected Lib Dems and former Blair voters, but it is easy to fall into the trap of imagining voters only sit on a left-right political swingometer and to think that all we have to do is tack a little to the left to bring another swathe of voters on side. Policies that are more left wing than the last Labour government will endear us to nobody.

We should instead be appealing to voters by aligning policies with the values that most voters share. I grew up in a working class area of North London where the default position of ethnic minorities and working people was to vote Labour. Margaret Thatcher found a way of connecting with these communities by appealing to our aspirations and our desire for self-improvement as well as our ambition for our families, our communities and our country.

Lots of traditional Labour voters believe in hard work, keeping more of what you earn, rewarding those who save for a rainy day, having a home and car of their own, traditional teaching methods in schools, punishing criminals severely, and standing up for Britain in Europe and the world. In everything that we do and say, we need to persuade them that the values of the modern Conservative Party are in line with these beliefs.

Syed Kamall is Conservative MEP for London and sits on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.

Three years after the depths of the financial crisis, if a bank went bust tomorrow it would still have to ask for taxpayers’ money to bail it out. For all the noise generated on the issue of banks and bankers, precious little of the new regulations that we have seen from the EU would do anything to prevent a future financial crisis. Instead, what we have seen is a land grab by the European Commission, aided and abetted by Germany and France, to take financial services regulation away from the UK.

Many European politicians do not understand the fundamental causes of the crisis. Bankers judged, correctly, that they could take big risks because governments would bail them out if it all went wrong. Yet the new regulations do not seek to remove moral hazard from the banking sector, to improve international financial reporting standards, to rule out future taxpayer bailout for failing banks or to instil in Directors greater accountability to their shareholders, customers and staff. Instead they either regulate parts of the financial services industry that were not responsible for the crisis, such as venture capital and investment trusts, or they target specific financial products or practices that are symptomatic of economic problems rather than causes of them. The Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is just one example of how they keep picking the wrong target.

Many European politicians, both left and right, are only too willing to play the populist card rather than take responsibility for their role in causing the crisis. President Sarkozy has spotted that by calling for an FTT, he can tap into the French people’s suspicion of the Anglo-Saxon economic model. He wants to play short term politics and reignite old hostilities at a time when Europe needs leaders who are prepared to make hard headed choices which secure their country’s long term prosperity. For London and for Britain, we will continue to rely heavily on the financial services sector for our continued prosperity as our economy rebalances towards trading with emerging markets. Any new regulatory measure must be judged in that context.

With the grating repetitiveness of scratched records, the Left in this country are hard at work attempting to smear the Big Society project as merely a smokescreen for 'devastating cuts' to services.

Let's get the so-called 'cuts' into perspective. The spending plans that the Coalition has published are aimed at bringing the budget back into balance. We have to stop the appalling culture of profligacy left by Labour, which has landed us in the awful fiscal state we are in. Just recently we found out how the Audit Commission, the very quango which was supposedly there to ensure prudent and responsible spending, was itself recklessly wasting tens of thousands of pounds on items such as excessively expensive office furniture.

Continuing to spend like Labour is simply not an option. There are myriad benevolent consequences of controlling and curtailing the national debt, which far outweigh what is lost when a budget is trimmed. It is a useful exercise to regularly seek savings in government budgets. Letting the front line have more control over the delivery of services and liberating local services from the dead hand of centralised control do have a part to play in getting Britain's fiscal ship back on course. But this is a potential bonus of the Big Society, not its raison d'etre. The initiative is a means of empowering citizens to organise direct, specific local initiatives to provide local services and address local needs.

One of the reasons the Conservative Party failed to win an absolute majority at the General Election was that many people did not know what we stood for beyond not being a tired out party, being "not Labour".

We did stand on a clear set of policies but the problem was that they were not understood widely and nor did they really inspire and motivate people to vote enthusiastically for us.

Our so-called "Big society" agenda is a case in point. It was not clearly defined at any stage of the election campaign and so it became a meaningless slogan in which we had to invest our trust without knowing quite what it meant in practice.

To his credit, David Cameron has been keen to put meat on the bones and define what could be a revolutionary project in tackling poverty in this country, and he has managed to turn Nick Clegg into an enthusiastic supporter of the Big Society as well.

The Left repeat ad nauseam Margaret Thatcher's quote that "there is no such thing as society", and use this to try to badge the Conservatives as a party which has no idea what society is. You never hear anyone on the Left actually completing her quote to put it in its proper context:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

When you read what she said in its full context it is clear she meant that you should not turn to the state to help people out before first asking what they can do for themselves or what others can do for them. You have to leave a space for self-help or voluntary help, or else the state takes over our lives. If people can look after themselves, they need not look to the state to do so.

When a poll last summer found that the public trusted the Conservative Party more than the Labour Party on the NHS, it hit the headlines. Newspaper columnists devoted pages about how the Conservative Party had finally banished its 'nasty' image, while socialist commentators wondered if there was any ground left on which they could take on the Conservatives.

The theory goes that some issues are owned by the left - health, poverty, education - whilst other issues are owned by the right - defence, law and order, and immigration. That the Conservatives owned the NHS, a Labour issue, was seen as big news and evidence that we were no longer toxic as a brand.

Similar views were offered about the standing ovation that David Cameron received when he discussed poverty in his speech at party conference.

But the media should not have been surprised. The poll and the standing ovations were merely measures of something that many of us have always known: that the Conservative Party is a progressive party. The party's history is littered with examples of socially progressive ideas and policies, from William Wilberforce's campaign to abolish slavery and Disraeli's Great Reform Act of 1867 to Churchill's abolition of national ID cards. Progressive policies are in the Conservative Party's DNA.

Dr Syed Kamall is the Conservative MEP for London and until recently was the Conservative Spokesman for International Trade.

Last week, I returned from Cote d' Ivoire where I co-chaired a winter school on the Principles of a Free Society for young centre-right politicians from Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Tanzania and Uganda. The winter school was organised by the Conservative Party Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme, the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation, an organisation connected to the Swedish Moderata party and the Democratic Union of Africa (DUA).

The seminars were based on Principles for a Free Society, a short book written by British Academic Dr Nigel Ashford who now teaches at the Institute of Humane Studies at George Mason University in Washington DC. The book outlines the values that underpin a free, democratic and open society and includes chapters on Private Property, The Rule of Law, Free Enterprise and Justice.

During our discussions, I heard harrowing details of beatings, rape and other physical violence opposition politicians have had to endure from left-wing governments across the continent. Here were some incredibly bright and brave individuals who wanted to reverse the damage caused by dictators who post-independence had adopted Marxist policies as a backlash against colonisation.

Over the three days, I asked the participants for their views on what policies an incoming Conservative government should adopt towards developing countries. Their responses fell into the following categories:

They want us to fight EU protectionism which harms farmers and African entrepreneurs trying to export to the EU.

They would like to see the British government doing more to tackle our EU neighbours on their support of corrupt regimes.

While aid is welcome for short-term disaster relief and to help the most vulnerable, they were suspicious of long term development aid. Some were even against foreign aid altogether - especially direct budgetary support - since they felt it helped to keep corrupt governments in power.

Syed Kamall is one of the Conservative MEPs who represents London and is a member of the European Parliament committee on International Trade.

Politicians play to their voters. That is a fact of political life. It sometimes means that we are tempted into taking up positions that are superficially attractive to a section of the electorate but which may not be in the best long term interests of the whole nation.

In tough economic times, the temptation becomes more intense as we see industries struggling and voters’ jobs at stake. It takes guts to take decisions which work for the long term health of the national economy and not to give in to the heartfelt pleas of struggling industries.

Protectionism is what happens when you give in. It is what has been happening in the G20 over the past twelve months, despite the avowed support by leaders for free trade. They are all subtly protecting their own industries’ in the short term, to the detriment of long term trade and global prosperity. Researchers at the World Bank say that, since the last G20 leaders' summit in Washington, 17 of the G20 countries have implemented 47 major measures whose effect is "to restrict trade at the expense of other countries".

We have been here before. In the period 1929 – 1932, International Trade fell by 70%, largely as a result of US protectionist policies and the backlash they created across the globe. The Economist Martin Wolf notes that “this collapse in trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan”. The result was poverty, genocide and a war that blighted a generation.

Recognising his government's desperate situation, Gordon Brown has decided he needs someone in his Government with the similar political skills to Labour's last election winner Tony Blair.

But Peter Mandelson is a totally different character to Blair - and more flawed. Mr Brown's decision to recall the Trade Commissioner for a third bite at the apple after disgracing the Labour government twice already tells us something about the level of talent available to him in the Labour party.

Mandelson's return seems to have been greeted with warmth from some sections of the business community, but they are deluding themselves if they think that a posturing Mr Mandelson can deliver for British business in reality. You only have to look at his record as EU Commissioner to see that. To his credit he appeared genuinely to believe in the merits of free trade - and he did on occasion stand up to the protectionist leaders of Europe - but he could never deliver.

Syed Kamall, MEP for London, expresses his concern about the potential the EU constitution creates for future transfers of power.

When Margaret Thatcher signed up to the Single European Act, she must
have had no idea it would have come to this. She saw the Act as a means
of entrenching free markets and liberty in a Europe plagued by the rot
of socialism within its borders and the threat of communism on its
doorstep. But her dream of a common market – although significantly
advanced by efforts of Conservative MEPs and others in the past twenty
years – has not been fully realised.

The proof of any treaty is in its interpretation. Mrs Thatcher lost
confidence in the EC project when she witnessed how the old
Franco/German axis used the 1986 Act to advance its cause of political,
rather than economic, integration; and of social protection, rather
than free markets. Governments always come home from European summits
claiming the national interest has been secured, but in reality even
the best legal minds in Europe cannot tell how the European Courts will
interpret the treaties, nor which laws the European Commission will
subsequently propose on the basis of a text agreed by bargaining
politicians in the early hours of the morning.

Syed is a substitute member of the European Parliament's justice and home affairs committee.

Europe's political leaders seem unwilling to take "no" for
an answer. It is like they don't understand our vocabulary. For them
the European Constitution matters more than the people's views, which
is why they are bringing its provisions in bit by bit.

If
Giscard's Constitution was Plan A, now we have Plan B: Barroso's
stealth version of the constitution which is proving far more effective
at driving European integration and growing the European superstate.

The
two major issues identified by the European Commission as excuses for
concentrating ever more powers centrally are saving the planet and
fighting international terrorism. For the Commission, these are great
excuses because who is going to argue against collective action on both
these fronts?

Those of us who have little admiration for the
European project have to start by making our position clear. We love
the planet and we hate terrorism. We think co-operation is necessary to
combat these scourges. It's just that we think democracy should play a
bigger part in bringing about such co-operation.

Being an MEP involves crossing a time zone every week of my life, but I sometimes wonder if I actually cross time warps to different planets.

I have recently been spending many hours in Brussels and Strasbourg acting as Shadow Rapporteur for the Television Without Frontiers Directive on the Internal Market Committee of the European Parliament. This has taught me that European law makers not only have a completely different mind set but also a completely different television set.

To the mind of the European law makers & regulators, it is dangerous for viewers if they watch too many programmes that were not made in Europe. It is even more dangerous if film and programme makers seek alternative revenue streams by allowing product placement. It is OK if the programme comes from America, because you expect that sort of thing from them but not if it's made in Europe! And as for advertising to children, that exposes them far too dangerously to adult activities like shopping.

The European regulator is not comfortable with the multichannel world. Too much choice puts too much power in the hands of the viewer, and how would the viewer know what they really want to watch? So, when it dawned on the ultimate European media regulator, Commissioner for Information, Society and Media Viviane Reding, that the web and on-demand TV services was giving viewers even more choices, she realised it was time to take firm action. A new TV Without Frontiers Directive would have to be introduced to bring internet broadcasters under the same regulatory burdens as traditional television.

Having failed to understand the impact of YouTube on the viewing habits of young people, many MEPs were only alerted to the fact that it even existed when Google bought it for a cool £1.6 billion. They are now even more determined extend the scope of the directive to regulate any services that might previously have slipped through the regulatory net.

While I and several of my free market colleagues on the Internal Market & others committees have done our best to represent the broadcasting and new media industry’s concerns about the scope and nature of the TVWF Directive, I am resting my main hopes for the future of British broadcasting and new media services on their ability to grab the opportunities afforded by the internet. Under the new Directive, internet broadcasters must beware of engaging in ‘economic activity’ and ‘editorial choices’ if they are to avoid regulation. A tall order if you are trying to earn a living but the market will find a way, I am sure.

As a sports fan, I can say hand on heart that the best thing that ever happened to sports broadcasting in the UK was Rupert Murdoch exploiting a loophole in the law to start Sky TV. Like him in the last century, the internet broadcasters of the twenty first century will just have to look for loopholes in the law. He went into space. In an internet age, you just need to offer services from outside the continent and then sit back and watch the European regulator try to jam your webcasts or commercial blogs, confident in the knowledge that, ultimately, the only effective regulators in this game are going to be the viewers themselves.

It is a sad situation when you have to conclude that rather than politicians allowing new services the space to flourish, instead media services companies will have to stay two steps ahead of European regulations. Our creative industries will have to just keep on running. If only we could use TiVo technology to fast forward past European regulations!